The system, PUA and others

[sweetkiwi]

if both parties are involved in the nsa sex then so be it. But many women are unaware of this crap and fall for it. A lot. Expecting for hoping for relationships that never happen. Which is sad but preventable.

 

I prefer sweet guy. The ones who aren't spitting game. It actually turns me off thinking about how many other women he's used the same lines on.

 

There is nothing wrong with either sex being perpetually single. I obviously won't end up in a relationship with one so i'm not worried. Its the married guys who cheat that worry me. So i encourage both men and women to really decide what they want from their life relationships.

[dasein]

I don't think she's shaming men who stay single and choose a lifestyle of sex. I think she's shaming men who manipulate women to get it.

 

You mean manipulate in the way women wear makeup, wear heels and sexy clothes? PUA is essentially the same as makeup for men. No material difference. All human interaction includes manipulation to a certain degree, it's when it's -pure- manipulation that ethical problems arise. No one is suggesting that makeup is pure manipulation, neither is PUA.

[ThaWholigan]

if both parties are involved in the nsa sex then so be it. But many women are unaware of this crap and fall for it. A lot. Expecting for hoping for relationships that never happen. Which is sad but preventable.

 

I prefer sweet guy. The ones who aren't spitting game. It actually turns me off thinking about how many other women he's used the same lines on.

 

There is nothing wrong with either sex being perpetually single. I obviously won't end up in a relationship with one so i'm not worried. Its the married guys who cheat that worry me. So i encourage both men and women to really decide what they want from their life relationships.

The problem is those "sweet" guys who don't spit game always seem to be struggling - if you go by what you hear on here.

[dasein]

I'm not a player by any means, but what exactly is it about voluntary, perpetual male singlehood that irks you to the point that you essentially have to shame men who choose such a lifestyle? Especially when you consider that most "players" do settle down at some point anyway, unless they are particularly wealthy and famous?

 

How does the fact that a few men are perfectly content with short-term relationships for a substantial portion of their lives negatively affect you at all? If I don't want to live up to society's expectation of having a wife, dog, a few kids and a house in the 'burbs with a white picket fence, what skin is it off your nose?

 

Oh oh, don't you know that shaming is always to be accepted without question? and calling it for what it is will be met with a wall o rationalization? Get with the "pogrom... erm program" counselor!

[TheBigQuestion]

Are these questions actually for me, or you? I couldn't care less whether you die alone or whether you ever have a single meaningful relationship in your life. In fact, I wasn't even addressing you specifically. I borrowed a bit of your language, but if I'd wanted to call you out, I would have quoted your post. My post was intended to address the OPs original questions and thoughts. Men do not get women by using this approach. At best they rent them for a little while. I know lots of people prefer short rentals over long-term commitments, but there are serious drawbacks with that approach that the PUA "system" totally overlooks.

 

Also, I'm not talking about society's expectations. I'm talking about natural life history issues. The fact that you think that you can eventually settle down or play this game for a particular period of your life is evidence that you probably haven't really thought this thing through too carefully. Choosing a PUA lifestyle may mean you never have the opportunity to settle down and the only way you'll get out of the game is by being dropped from the team. Not too many worthwhile women want an over-the-hill, used up, former player. They're not trust worthy and most of them aren't very interesting. I've been very fortunate over my nearly three decades of romantic involvements, insofar as my contact with these type of men has been quite limited, but I can tell you that, from a woman's standpoint, players are boring, predictable and really only good for one thing (and most aren't nearly as good at that one thing as they think they are...simply because they just don't know women in the way that men who have been in real relationships do).

 

Also, I'm not trying to shame you into anything. I don't believe in shame or guilt. You do, however, seem to be in need of a reality check. You're gonna get old if you don't get yourself killed by some loony chick who buys into your garbage or gives you an STD (yeah, yeah, we all use protection all of the time). When that day comes, you'll be "that guy"... the sad old fart sitting in the park with the other sad old farts, reminiscing about all the women you had.

 

Are you using the term "you" in your post generally or are you addressing me? If the latter, I have no idea why, as the first sentence in my post clearly states that I'm not a player.

 

I never even remotely suggested that I thought you had called me out. The fact that you're making this assumption is bizarre. I recognized that you were addressing the OP, and I simply wanted to know why it is that this lifestyle irks you so much. I mean, both in this reply and in your initial thread, you seem to have a degree of contempt for it on a personal level that I rarely see. The fact that you were so quick to assume that I thought you were calling me out is also quite illustrative.

[venatic]

Ok guys and gals...you probably all know the PUA's forums.

What one forum has to say is always revolving round a woman's interest level. Same goes for PUA's. They're always about not contacting her and leave her wondering what's going on.

 

The bottom line for me is: there is SOME truth in these ideas. After all, you don't want to come off too needy. But on the other hand, I'm just not able to completely ignore a girl to raise her interest level. I mean, come on, if I'm not interesting or good looking or smart enough myself to keep her interest level high, then what is?

 

So, what do you all think about this?

 

It works for some, but end of the day it's more about self discovery more than anything else imo.

 

PUA teaches you social norm, and it's very beneficial to those who are clueless or socially awkward.

[todreaminblue]

Ok guys and gals...you probably all know the PUA's forums.

What one forum has to say is always revolving round a woman's interest level. Same goes for PUA's. They're always about not contacting her and leave her wondering what's going on.

 

The bottom line for me is: there is SOME truth in these ideas. After all, you don't want to come off too needy. But on the other hand, I'm just not able to completely ignore a girl to raise her interest level. I mean, come on, if I'm not interesting or good looking or smart enough myself to keep her interest level high, then what is?

 

So, what do you all think about this?

 

 

 

See this is where i struggle I don't play games when i am not drinking or am stable ....I am pretty straight up if i have feelings for someone i say so.....I dont play around with my own heart if a guy is going to try to play uninterested i will assume he doesn't like me and if i am not invested i move on hasnt happened very often I normally am attracted to guys who are straight up.....they let me know they like me .......i let them know i like them...i didnt even know what negging was until i read it on here an figured out i have been negged a few times......a bit actually and thats just wrong.....

 

what i struggle with is why would anyone want to waste time playing games if the attraction is there its there life is way too short to waste time eplaying games ....games are for kids...i like playing games with kids and adults....prefer some kind of ball being thrown around.... and the more you play with attraction the more mess you make of a simple time where you could be spending time with the person you like...i don't understand it seems pointless and risky to me......i understand some women are fickle some men are fickle.....they ummm and ahhh about do i or dont i

as far as attraction goes....i dont get attracted to many so i know it when i feel it and its either through being friends and a gradual growing attraction or something attracts me to someone and its unexpected like this time its a mix of things i cant pinpoint the feelings haven't dropped away.....they dont change....i believe treat them mean keep them keen is risky.......when you like someone and want to get to know them you should tell them...i do even though i am a chicken i still do...kamikaze....i am still kamikazing with contact even after i got rejected until he tells me to rack off ..he is too nice though.....lol....i hope

 

 

i might though just annoy the crap out of him.....sad face....deb

[TheBigQuestion]

I don't think she's shaming men who stay single and choose a lifestyle of sex. I think she's shaming men who manipulate women to get it.

 

It's one thing if a man is upfront and honest about having no interest in the girl but just wanting to screw her. But doing the whole push/pull, text-her-ignore-her, insult-her, penetrate-the-Bitch-Shield thing is slimy and manipulative.

 

I'd happily make prostitution legal (and less health-risky) if it meant guys would no longer try to trick girls into short-term sex exchanges.

 

I'll leave it for her to answer, but her comments make it seem like men who choose a lifestyle without long-term romantic commitments are mostly boring, sad losers who will be lonely and miserable for their choices. What she conveniently leaves out is that if one does not value long-term romantic relationships, the lack of such relationships in their lives are of little consequence. People are allowed to value different things in life, and guess what? Many of them will probably NOT end up miserable.

 

This idea that women are frequently "tricked" into having casual sex is downright insulting to their intelligence. If you're an adult of sound mind who gives consent, you have not been tricked into doing anything. Both the man and the woman are voluntary participants in the act. The fact that some immature women ascribe meaning to the act of sex that simply isn't there and who then torture themselves about it does not make the guy a manipulator. The classic situation where a man makes promises about how they're going to be in a relationship, gets the girl gifts, and says all sorts of lovey-dovey stuff just to get a crack at taking off her panties, then leaves not long after he succeeds, is more the exception than the rule. While I admittedly haven't read a whole lot of PUA literature, it is my understanding that the community in general actually abhors those exact behaviors. More often, the man attempts to have sex with the woman and succeeds based on the fact that she fancies him and she wanted it. Using certain strategies to maximize attraction and to make the dating experience more interesting is no different a woman maximizing her appearance and her flirting abilities.

 

I'm generally baffled whenever women bash the PUA community as a whole. Yes, there are some PUA authors and communities that seem to have an ax to grind with the opposite sex. From what I've seen though, most of the material is simply designed to get men out of their shell, to approach more women, to increase the quality of their approaches, and to make things more interesting. Why get mad at that? That would be like me getting mad at the inventors of makeup and high heels.

[yongyong]

I am sure you gave it to plenty of guys who had game in their mind.

You just want to deny by saying 'I am smart enough not to fall for that'

Guess how many guys lied or said something you wanted to hear to get down there? Guess how many guys came up with their own strategy to get there faster?

 

Personally, I think this stuff is funny as hell. I would never in a million years take seriously a guy who follows this rubbish, but years ago I did have fun playing along for a little while.

 

The biggest problem with these goofy approaches is that they're empty. They're no different than crash diets. You can get only so far, which generally isn't very. Five minutes of success, followed by months of chasing, gaming, scamming...over and over again. Women don't want these men. They want the excitement that the game provides for five minutes. If the systems were so successful, you wouldn't see the same fools returning to the PUA websites over and over, trying to refine their game. Hopping in and out of bed with multiple partners, none of whom know or care a rat's behind you, is like binging on junk food. Sex is fun, but it gets old when you have no connection to the people you're banging. The guys that say otherwise generally have no clue what they're missing out on, or the fact that the women they're with think as little of them as they do of those women. We know what you're doing and we are not impressed.

[CptSaveAho]

I'm a woman that has had 300+ partners and I think it is a crock of sh*t.

 

I can see when a guy tries to use a "system" and it is nothing but laughable. I immediately avoid men who try to use it on me...

 

lol 300+ partners.... I'd say it actually worked

 

contrary to the womens' posts here, the game/system is "RIGGED" against them... they know its coming, cant do anything to stop it

Edited November 7, 2012 by CptSaveAho

[ThaWholigan]

LOL! Wishful thinking buddy. I don't find it irksome or care on a personal level. It's just sad. The whole PUA thing is ridiculous. I honestly feel for the men who buy into this. It's no different than the women who buy magazines that tell them "how to please a man in 10 new and exciting ways tonight", thinking they'll find their perfect partner once they just perfect their skills in the sack.

 

And you certainly did appear to call me out, you quoted my post. If your policy is to quote one person's posts when you're addressing someone else, I apologize. Whatever the case, nothing I've said thus far was intended for anyone other than the folks seriously considering the PUA lifestyle.

 

As I said, I don't care what you (and I heard you, you're not a player, I got it) or any of the boys who pursue this lifestyle do or what becomes of any of you. I do, however, think it might behoove some of the more naive young blokes who stumble across this silliness to get some perspective from the other side. I feel for the boys who think they're missing out because they can't quite bring themselves to behave like these losers. It's a lie and it sets them up for long-term unhappiness and disappointment. As I said, my direct experience with PUAs is quite limited, as I find them really far too cheezy to even be useful for a fling.

 

If there's one thing about the lifestyle that truly does bother me, it's the dishonesty, but I don't like phonies or liars of either sex. If you wanna hop from bed to bed, knock yourself out, but at least be up front about what you're doing.

 

I don't think all guys want the lifestyle. When I read PUA literature, I certainly didn't want to be like a PUA. I just wanted to find a better way to talk to women without screwing it up all the time. And I did.

[TheBigQuestion]

LOL! Wishful thinking buddy. I don't find it irksome or care on a personal level. It's just sad. The whole PUA thing is ridiculous. I honestly feel for the men who buy into this. It's no different than the women who buy magazines that tell them "how to please a man in 10 new and exciting ways tonight", thinking they'll find their perfect partner once they just perfect their skills in the sack.

 

And you certainly did appear to call me out, you quoted my post. If your policy is to quote one person's posts when you're addressing someone else, I apologize. Whatever the case, nothing I've said thus far was intended for anyone other than the folks seriously considering the PUA lifestyle.

 

As I said, I don't care what you (and I heard you, you're not a player, I got it) or any of the boys who pursue this lifestyle do or what becomes of any of you. I do, however, think it might behoove some of the more naive young blokes who stumble across this silliness to get some perspective from the other side. I feel for the boys who think they're missing out because they can't quite bring themselves to behave like these losers. It's a lie and it sets them up for long-term unhappiness and disappointment. As I said, my direct experience with PUAs is quite limited, as I find them really far too cheezy to even be useful for a fling.

 

If there's one thing about the lifestyle that truly does bother me, it's the dishonesty, but I don't like phonies or liars of either sex. If you wanna hop from bed to bed, knock yourself out, but at least be up front about what you're doing.

 

I never said that I didn't "call you out" by quoting and responding to your post. Of course I was responding to you. In my first post that quoted you, I never suggested that I thought YOU had called ME out. You thought that I had mistakenly read your initial posts against the player lifestyle as being directed towards me, and I knew they were not. I was commenting on them anyway as a third-person observer, not because I thought your post was addressing me or attacking me.

 

You're free to think what you want, but keep in mind that your opinion purports to predict the inner mental state of hypothetical player men years from now when they supposedly "regret" the decision to be a player. Good luck with that. You also overlook the fact that different people value different things. Like I said to verhrzn, if Guy X doesn't give a rat's ass about long-term romantic relationships, the fact that he doesn't have them won't be of much consequence to him. I'm currently in a long-term relationship, but I don't see what is inherently more valuable about that lifestyle than a lifestyle comprised of short-term and/or casual sexual relationships. Really, the only reason most people think the former is superior to the latter is because society deems it so. This ignores the fact that MANY people are absolutely miserable in long-term relationships, marriages, traditional families, etc., and plenty of people are quite happy being "alone."

 

I truly hope you are equally harsh on women who were "sluts" when they were younger but who presently feel like they deserve a good man.

Edited November 7, 2012 by TheBigQuestion

[yongyong]

so do you prefer guys who can't make good eye contacts, can't make you laugh, don't know how to talk, can't physically escalate, act little awkward or nervous?

 

Or you prefer a charming confident men just without PUA vibe? natural born womanizer??? :lmao:

 

Cool, if you haven't given it to plenty of guys. By looking at your picture, I can tell you are an older lady. I thought it would be an insulting if I say you look like you don't have enough experiences with men.

 

 

Sorry to disappoint once again but if they were trying, they either failed or forgot what they were doing. I haven't "given it to plenty of guys" so the possibility that I "gave it to plenty of guys who had game in their mind is pretty much nil". I have had a number of both short and long term relationships in my life, but even the flings were straight forward about what they were looking for. "Game" gives off an odor that most women can smell a mile away. It doesn't require a keen intellect to pick up.

[CptSaveAho]

LOL monica arent you 42 with 3 grandkids?

 

Im sure someone tickled your elmo a little early with some pua action back then

[yongyong]

oh did I insult you without realizing it? I shouldn't bring up the age even though it's very obvious?

 

 

Good lord, I can certainly see why the PUA thing appeals to you! You definitely need all the help you can get.

[Stephanie]

Let's keep the personal insults off this thread and keep the posts on topic please.

I would hate to give someone an infraction for posts on this thread.

 

Thanks

[dasein]

PUA discussions, always a crowd pleaser here. LS never fails to bring posters out to bang the gong excoriating the choices and lifestyles of others and whatever methodologies they choose in pursuit of those choices and lifestyles choices very obviously far outside the ambit of detractors' own experiences in life, choices they very obviously know less than nothing about, just don't like the idea of it, how it -sounds-, what it -might- be. But I guess for some folks, that's enough to start braiding the noose.

 

Personally, I get embarrassed when advocating adamant, outspoken opinions on things I don't know anything at all about, though my work requires me to do it from time to time. I put on a good show, best I can, but still get embarrassed when obligated to talk out of my ass.

 

But then again I'm a man.

[TheBigQuestion]

Okay, let me make this super clear so we can move on. I do not have an issue with any man who tries to improve himself in order to improve his chances with women.

 

On the other hand, I do think literature/website/motivational speeches that instructs young men to play games and lie to girls to get them in the sack is not good. I think any so-called "self help" that instructs people to lie and manipulate others is bad news. That's my beef with the PUA systems. I also think that programs that promote or support the exploitation of anyone for sex are bad. I don't have any problem whatsoever with consulting adults getting together solely for the sake of getting busy if they're both into it.

 

That said, I do think it's important to keep in mind that the time you spend hopping from bed to bed is time you could be spending cultivating something meaningful that will really help you develop as a human being.

 

That's fair enough, but how much PUA have you read to conclude that the majority of it is based on lies and manipulation? How did you come to the conclusion that most men read the material with the intention of becoming full-blown players rather than consulting it for useful advice, as ThaWholigan does? Keep in mind that most readers of anything and everything PUA are almost always dating novices, and PUA over the last decade or so has been pretty much the only thing to have helped involuntarily celibate men. "Advice" columns in crap magazines like Maxim helped men with relationships about as much as Cosmo's "20 New Ways to Make Men's Custard Cannons Explode" columns have helped women with theirs

 

Even if we grant for the sake of argument that PUA-type relationship/dating advice is manipulative, is all manipulation inherently bad? If so, why do you think so? For instance, is a woman manipulating me when she puts on her best outfit, does her hair and makeup, bats her eyelashes and flashes me a devilish smile? Is she lying when she wears a padded bra? When she demonstrates that she's a seasoned professional at flirtation? I think that when you use the terms "lies" and "manipulation" liberally and broadly, the answers to all those questions are "yes." Do I consider those behaviors and appearance modifications malevolent just because they serve to maximize attraction rather than portray the woman's traits in a 100% authentic light? Not at all.

 

And your last paragraph just assumes once again that monogamous, long-term relationships are superior to other types, an assumption that is merely a reflection of your values. I COULD just as easily spend the time I put toward my relationship on becoming a better guitarist, reading more, building job skills, deepening my relationship with family and friends, and so forth. These are all meaningful things that will help me develop as a human being, and I would have way more time to do all of them if I was just "hopping from bed to bed."

Edited November 7, 2012 by TheBigQuestion

[TheBigQuestion]

Sadly, I have read far too much of the PUA literature (I can send you the links if you like). More than enough to know that a very large portion of it is geared at exactly the things I've already covered here. I've already addressed the use of this literature to develop social skills in a previous post so we can leave that alone.

 

As far as the use of one's best outfit, hair and makeup as manipulation goes... that may well be, but so too is the choice to brush your teeth, comb your hair, and put on a clean shirt. Nevermind opening the door for her! I honestly don't care about the various little rituals people engage in to make themselves presentable.

 

It's the manipulation intended to get a woman in the sack under false pretenses that I find problematic. You're certainly correct when you say that women shoulder much of the responsibility in making these games work, but again, I think bulls*** is a problem with either sex so the fact that women do dishonest, crappy things too is a moot point. People, male and female alike, who misuse other people generally get burned eventually and that's exactly what they deserve.

 

I never specified what you needed to be doing while you weren't hopping from bed to bed. Guitar practice or time spent with friends both seem like legitimate ways to develop your character, as well as being meaningful pursuits. YOU are, unjustifiably, assuming things about my values.

 

What are you defining as "false pretenses" though? If there is any major PUA literature that explicitly condones and/or instructs its users to make themselves appear lovey-dovey and relationship-oriented solely for the purpose of getting the woman in bed, I've yet to encounter it. If you can dig it up, I won't contest it. From what I've seen, women, particularly the younger and less mature ones, tend to make a mountain out of the molehill that is a casual sexual encounter and ascribe all sorts of meaning to it, regardless of anything the guy says or does. Then when the guy does not reciprocate interest, she accuses him of being a liar, manipulator, abuser, etc. I think this scenario is best described by any or all of the following terms: (1) "immaturity"; (2) "poor communication"; (3) "vivid imaginations," as opposed to either party acting under "false pretenses."

 

Most PUA literature gives tips on body language, posture, eye contact, how to approach different women in different social situations, a few examples of conversations to have (or "canned material"), how to not smother the woman with communication, how to not perceive her as being on a pedestal, and tips on how to escalate sexually. Some also talk about developing "inner game" which really has nothing to do with approaching or sleeping with women. This is the type of stuff that most men learn by trial and error, but some guys simply never do.

 

These actions constitute either "lies" or "manipulations" in the most liberal sense of those terms: one who puts those suggestions into play is modifying his natural way of being in order to maximize his options with women. As far as I can tell, these are not qualitatively different from all the things women are taught to do from early adolescence.

[dasein]

Sadly, I have read far too much of the PUA literature (I can send you the links if you like).

 

Google is a powerful tool indeed. Interesting that you claim that PUA has not affected your life in the least, yet have for some reason read "far too much" of it.

 

As far as the use of one's best outfit, hair and makeup as manipulation goes... that may well be, but so too is the choice to brush your teeth, comb your hair, and put on a clean shirt. Nevermind opening the door for her! I honestly don't care about the various little rituals people engage in to make themselves presentable.

 

Nor apparently do you care to know the difference between basic grooming and augmentation. Combing one's hair is the former. Dyeing it the latter, as are makeup, pushup bras, high heels, jewelry. PUA isn't even that degree of augmentation. In most cases it's a crutch, used to correct a real or even perceived disability in dating. Most real players are naturals, would never need to spend money on PUA, as they are busily screwing away with all the chumps' "devoted" GFs as they have since HS. Do you have an inclination to kick a cane away when you see someone using one?

 

It's the manipulation intended to get a woman in the sack under false pretenses that I find problematic.

 

Then you will be pleased to know that no PUA or dating coach purports to teach that. People have been lying to each other, manipulating each other, to get what they want sexually, the act or resources that accompany it, for much longer than PUA has been around. That's easy. Women have proven for centuries that they love being lied to and manipulated, it allows them to escape accountability for their behavior, whether it's "I'll respect you in the morning," "The car is out of gas," or "I'll only put the tip in." That's easy, lying to women to get them to do what they really want to do anyway, they just need a pass to do it and be able to fawn endlessly in the mirror the next day with a clear conscience. We already knew that, and learn it quite young.

 

No, PUA is something entirely different. If it were, "lie to women," who would pay for it? Any schmo knows how to lie, no money in selling that. PUA is an attempt to get men to consider what honestly attracts a broad array of the general female population and apply that knowledge as tools of seduction. If that happens to be silly ass things like palm reading, crystals, wicca, vampires, tarot, negging, play acting, then who's to blame for that? Some committee of patriarchs who decided "This crap is what we think women should respond to, thus they will?"

 

Doesn't work that way. You all dictate what works on the general mass of you, and what doesn't. We'd much prefer to walk up, proposition you directly like reasonable adults, and get our "yes" or "no." But you just don't like that. We'd much rather you were seduced by more cerebral, tangible, meaningful things, but you aren't. You want to talk ESP and psych games. Well OK then. If that says anything about women today and the gravitas of their proclivities,

 

Don't shoot the messenger.

[dasein]

LMAO!! Got your knickers in a bit of a twist there now eh?

 

Just a different variety of shaming, as opposed to any reasoned response. Maybe try addressing some specific thing I posted? (there were lots of substantive claims in my prior post, yet you address none of them) I did you the courtesy of addressing specific things you posted as opposed to surmising about your character, mood, or any other irrelevant thing, only addressed your POV, not you personally. Surely you can tell the difference.

 

That's how things generally work other than on the set of the Springer show. Potshot exchanges directed at posters don't really do anything for anyone seeking to learn whether PUA may be useful to them or not, or even what PUA actually is, do they?

 

 

My responses here have been clear and focused on exactly what the problems are with the PUA lifestyle. If they bother you, feel free to ignore them, and just move along.

 

I have responded directly, in a reasonable fashion, to your posts, the words in them. The thing that bothers me about your posts to this thread, besides your tendency to slide personal attacks and unnecessary shaming language into them, is that they reflect little if any specific knowledge of the topic, PUA systems and techniques, yet are offered in an extremely judgmental, conclusory fashion.

 

If being a PUA is working for you and you're getting what you need and want from your relationships with women, keep doing what you're doing. Good luck!

 

I'm not a "PUA," but someone who found lots of PUA sources extremely valuable in improving my dating and life success generally.

 

 

Anyway, back to the actual PUA topic.

 

Women have been asking men to become more "romantic" less "distant," more "confident," less "linear," more "right-brained," less "left brained," and all other manner of various and sundry observations of how men are lacking in some way, always lacking .

 

PUA addresses those very common female complaints about men. In fact, it doesn't take much delving into it to determine that's exactly the focus of it. In short, "figure out what women want, and give them that."

 

It is a tool for -satisfying- women's desires, because that is what men do and have always done, sought to satisfy their own desires by using tools to satisfy women. In this way PUA is a gynocentric phiolosophy. If it were androcentric, it would involve using any and all tools at male disposal including superior physical strength to achieve male desires at the discount of female. It would indeed entail lying to women. It advocates against the very things that women claim to find objectionable in male behavior, and emphasizes -doing what women want men to do-.

 

As stated, it isn't a committee of hucksters shucking a mass of gullible men, that would be a poor and unsound business model. It is instead built on figuring out what women want and giving it to them. And also as stated, if those things seem silly, sound manipulative or whatever, it's because -that's what works-! It's not as if PUA advocates bringing a hammer to a job that requires a wheel, it advocates figuring out the right tool for the job of -satisfying the desires of women- and putting that tool to use. If some use the tool to do violence, or against the stated goal, it is not an indictment of the tool itself.

Edited November 7, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
removed reference to deleted parts of post

[Imajerk17]

I try to stay out of these debates with women about the benefits of PUA. These conversations usually go nowhere. No matter how good the arguments are for guys learning this stuff (how else are they going to learn, the guys who take up PUA are the guys you "should" be dating in that they have a lot of qualities), women just aren't going to agree.

 

Look, a woman just doesn't want to think that the man whom she is feeling major sparks with downloaded his personality from the Internet for $299.95 a month ago. She instead wants to feel that is who he is to his core, shaped by a bunch of hard-earned life experiences.

 

I like what dasein said though. Most men are clueless about what women want. You see it especially in online dating. Most men will write women first emails such as "you're hot" or they will bring up sex way too soon. Or they take the Nice Guy route and write her 3 long paragraphs about how much they have in common. A smart guy who knows what he is doing won't do any of that. Instead of "following his instincts" and telling her in his first email about how taken he is by her beauty or how hot she is, he will instead do something else. I know because I have a lot of luck with OLD. And yes, I am short.

 

Anyway, PUA clues guys in to what many women are really thinking. Maybe not all women, but a lot of them. As I mentioned, not everyone writes me back but an awful lot of them do, so I must be doing something right. Anyway, how did you think I learned.

 

monica, maybe you could instead tell us how you met your last partner and what drew you to him. If you would like to share....

Edited November 7, 2012 by Imajerk17

[Janesays]

PUA has never worked on me. I'd admit it if it had, but the facts say otherwise.

 

For example, after my first date with my now-fiance, we never went more than a day without speaking. Not a single day....and that includes when he was out of town on business. He never ignored my calls. He responded promptly when I emailed. He complimented me constantly. Never 'negged' me.

 

On our third date he told me he was 'crazy about me' and I never felt anxious about his feelings or intent towards me.

 

I was very upfront and transparent too. I treated him exactly how he treated me: showering him with compliments, never being distant or 'mysterious,' I initiated sex, and said the 'L-word' first.

 

About a year and half later and we're engaged to be married and honestly couldn't be happier.

 

Right before I met him, I went on a date with an extremely good looking, charming, PUA-type guy who withheld compliments and waited three days to call me after our first date. He was friend zoned almost immediately while I pursued my current man.

 

I think that guys that are very upfront about how they feel about you are the truly confident ones. Only a coward keeps his cards close to his chest because he's afraid to be vulnerable and has a crippling fear of rejection. A man that is not afraid to say how he feels and is ready, willing, and able to risk everything for a shot at love and happiness is incredibly, incredibly sexy to me.

 

But, that's just my style, I guess.

[Janesays]

Just want to add, I very strongly believer, in regards to BOTH sexes that:

 

If you have to manipulate someone into loving you, then they don't love you.

 

That's the cold, hard truth people.

[ThaWholigan]

I don't know what PUA you guys are reading. Mystery Method was a looooooooonng time ago....

 

I think that guys that are very upfront about how they feel about you are the truly confident ones. Only a coward keeps his cards close to his chest because he's afraid to be vulnerable and has a crippling fear of rejection. A man that is not afraid to say how he feels and is ready, willing, and able to risk everything for a shot at love and happiness is incredibly, incredibly sexy to me.

This isn't really the issue here. That's like saying every guy who fears rejection is manipulative. The point is, a man could be not afraid to say how he feels and straight out be upfront - and still not get anywhere and still end up in a lot of "friendzones" (I'm beginning to dislike that term ). He still has to know how to talk to women without screwing it up. How to be able to empathize, how to even be confident in the first place.

 

He needs to understand who his type is, who responds to him most, and tailor his approach to them, because even if he attracts a certain type, he may be so clueless in this area that he may still end up turning them off unless she is one of the very rare who will like him even when he does stupid things that make him look unattractive (like in the movies). I know because it's all happened to me.

 

And as much as I've read a lot of PUA in the last couple of years, I have never "negged" anybody, never lied to or manipulated anybody, or deliberately became "mysterious". I never deliberately didn't call women or ignored women at all. All I did was get better at articulating myself to women, lose a large chunk of my fear of rejection and become a lot more relaxed around women as a result. I don't deny that there are a lot of counterproductive and negative ideologies that exist within PUA and were probably a sizable component at one point. I even addressed that a lot of PUA is BS in a previous thread of mine - which typically a lot of women liked that post . But what I took from PUA was enough to be vital, and I cannot completely denigrate all of it, and it still irks me when people do.